Libertarianists/Anarchists - what's the difference ?

nesf

RNL wrote: »

Appeals to Human Nature carry an implication of biological determinism at the level of social organisation. This has not even come remotely close to being evidenced. In fact, the deep heterogeneity of human behaviour in terms of social organisation and the heavily evidenced adaptibility of human psychology indicates quite the opposite. So aside from coming uncomfortably close to Social Darwinism, and thus carrying a whiff of status quo apologetics (no accusation intended), the appeal to Human Nature is making an implicit assertion that is unsupportable, and is demanding the debate become a discourse on a subject nobody knows anything about.

No, I don't think the argument is that black or white. Human nature can be taken as any inherited inclination in behaviour, it does not necessitate or imply genetic determinism. Take monogamy as an example. Different animals (and I'm viewing man as just another animal here) have different "marital structures" some form monogamous pair bonds, some polygamous etc et al. There tends, in any one species, a tendency towards one of these with the others being rare. When you look at humans, even in the most remote untouched tribe, monogamy tends to be the rule (not absolutely, there tends to be some polygamy but not much and no polyandry). This is the kind of human nature that I'm talking about, a simply inclination in our behaviour towards a certain kind of behaviour. We choose this, we don't have it thrust upon us, it just happens that as a species we tend to choose it if given a choice in the matter.

Appeals to human nature can be weak and sometimes plain wrong as with many groups arguing about the "natural order", but denying it even though it is plainly obvious that people aren't born with a tabla rasa as the mind it would be silly to start from a position that we don't inherit some tendencies in our behaviour. Matt Ridley published a good and very readable book on the topic of genes vs experience and how we aren't forced to accept a position at the polar extremes in this debate as is often argued for by both sides: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/1841157465/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227214149&sr=8-1

Essentially the logical fallacy in your argument above is one of the excluded middle. Acknowledging the existence of human nature does not force us to subscribe to the extreme genetic determinism of Social Darwinism.

AARRRGH

BenjAii wrote: »

Libertarianists/Anarchists - what's the difference ?

Libertarianists believe they can control their own fate.

Anarchists like parkour and think anonymous/scientology protests are cool.

RNL

nesf wrote: »

No, I don't think the argument is that black or white. Human nature can be taken as any inherited inclination in behaviour, it does not necessitate or imply genetic determinism. Take monogamy as an example. Different animals (and I'm viewing man as just another animal here) have different "marital structures" some form monogamous pair bonds, some polygamous etc et al. There tends, in any one species, a tendency towards one of these with the others being rare. When you look at humans, even in the most remote untouched tribe, monogamy tends to be the rule (not absolutely, there tends to be some polygamy but not much and no polyandry). This is the kind of human nature that I'm talking about, a simply inclination in our behaviour towards a certain kind of behaviour. We choose this, we don't have it thrust upon us, it just happens that as a species we tend to choose it if given a choice in the matter.

Appeals to human nature can be weak and sometimes plain wrong as with many groups arguing about the "natural order", but denying it even though it is plainly obvious that people aren't born with a tabla rasa as the mind it would be silly to start from a position that we don't inherit some tendencies in our behaviour. Matt Ridley published a good and very readable book on the topic of genes vs experience and how we aren't forced to accept a position at the polar extremes in this debate as is often argued for by both sides: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/1841157465/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227214149&sr=8-1

Essentially the logical fallacy in your argument above is one of the excluded middle. Acknowledging the existence of human nature does not force us to subscribe to the extreme genetic determinism of Social Darwinism.

I'm not arguing from a tabula rasa conception of the mind. The mind has a structure, of course. But we know next to nothing of what that structure is, or, what is more relevant, what the boundaries of its possibilities are in terms of the forms of human behaviour and human socioeconomic organisation it 'permits'.

Greed, selfishness, materialism, apathy, narcissism, etc, are learned traits. No one is born inclined toward greed, anymore so than toward altruism. We inherit the capacity to learn to behave in particular ways in particular contexts. Beyond that you're assuming. I think we can agree that whatever the structure of the human mind is, it's more complex than that of the minds of other animals. My feeling on the prevalence of monogamy, for what it's worth, is that it's a social extension of the inherent procreative relationship between human males and females. It's a social construct that has a clear biological root. I don't think competitive monopoly economics has a comparable biological root. There's nothing unjust, exploitative or oppressive about monogamy either... unless it's coercive (like capitalism). So it's not a very good analogy.

You understand the distinction I'm drawing between the facts of the biological makeup of the human animal as an emergent property of the natural world (which must exist, but which we know very little about) and the concept of Human Nature (which is ostensibly the same thing, but is discussed, very speciously, in political theory and elsewhere, as though it's a metaphysical issue - in which sense its existence is very much an open question).

There is always an implication of biological determinism when you talk about Human Nature precluding the possibility of certain forms of human social organisation. It's biological determinism on the level of 'the masses' rather than the individual. I mean, this 'inclination' you're referring to is very ill-defined. You're suggesting that each individual has it within their power to choose to behave in such a way as would make possible an organisation of economic life along libertarian socialist lines, but that due to this inherited 'inclination' most people wouldn't. Is that right? If so then that is biological determinism on the level of social organisation; the 'inclination' is just the form this mass social determinism takes on the level of each individual.

Akrasia

AARRRGH wrote: »

Libertarianists believe they can control their own fate.

Anarchists like parkour and think anonymous/scientology protests are cool.

what are you talking about??

SkepticOne

RNL wrote: »

Greed, selfishness, materialism, apathy, narcissism, etc, are learned traits. No one is born inclined toward greed, anymore so than toward altruism.

Would we not need to know a fair amount about the human mind to say this? Yet earlier you say

The mind has a structure, of course. But we know next to nothing of what that structure is, or, what is more relevant, what the boundaries of its possibilities are in terms of the forms of human behaviour and human socioeconomic organisation it 'permits'

How do we know greed, atruism and so forth are primarily learned traits (as opposed to merely being influenced by learning) if we know nothing (as you claim) about the mind.

RNL

SkepticOne wrote: »

Would we not need to know a fair amount about the human mind to say this?

No, we need only the evidence of the "deep heterogeneity of human behaviour", even, and in fact mostly no less so, within genealogical lines, that I mentioned earlier.

The rest is deduction.

If you want to set about trying to prove that narcissism or altruism are inherited traits, fill your boots. But the burden of proof is definitely on you, and all signs point to no.

nesf

RNL wrote: »

I'm not arguing from a tabula rasa conception of the mind. The mind has a structure, of course. But we know next to nothing of what that structure is, or, what is more relevant, what the boundaries of its possibilities are in terms of the forms of human behaviour and human socioeconomic organisation it 'permits'.

Greed, selfishness, materialism, apathy, narcissism, etc, are learned traits. No one is born inclined toward greed, anymore so than toward altruism.

How much of modern neuroscientific and psychiatric/psychological research are you aware of? (genuine question, I'm not trying to be smart here). There has been a wealth of work done on what attributes appear to be at least partially inherited, it's still a very young field but we know a great deal more about what the mind is and its interplay with genetics than we did two or even three decades ago, never mind the early to mid twentieth century where much of the academic boundaries between social science began to be set.

We can inherit such "social attributes" like tendencies towards religious fundamentalism, it's been clearly demonstrated with twin studies. Drawing an a priori line in the sand and saying "this" must be learned isn't exactly born up by the evidence.

RNL wrote: »

I mean, this 'inclination' you're referring to is very ill-defined. You're suggesting that each individual has it within their power to choose to behave in such a way as would make possible an organisation of economic life along libertarian socialist lines, but that due to this inherited 'inclination' most people wouldn't. Is that right?

Not really. Look, take mental illness as an example (simply because illnesses can tell us a lot about the mind). A person can have a predisposition genetically towards one but never develop it unless they are exposed to certain environmental conditions (it's the interplay of nurture and nature here that gives us the result not solely one or the other).

We definitely don't need choice along libertarian lines (I don't believe in free will, and hold this position to start with) but it is not inconsistent with the existence of free will in whatever form you want so long as you don't presuppose as tabla rasa starting point for the mind. This inclination is a potential towards a certain kind of behaviour, action or condition that (usually) needs to combine with some environment factor in order for this behaviour, action or condition to occur or happen. We can allow these kinds of tendencies, which are contingent on environment factors, without having to subscribe to either extreme of the genetic determinist/environmental determinist spectrum.

nesf

RNL wrote: »

No, we need only the evidence of the "deep heterogeneity of human behaviour", even, and in fact mostly no less so, within genealogical lines, that I mentioned earlier.

The rest is deduction.

Um, have you looked at twin studies*? There's a lot that's heterogeneous and a lot that isn't so the rest isn't just deduction. Two family members DNA (if they are not identical twins) isn't hugely homogeneous anyway, so we wouldn't expect anything but a lot of heterogeneity in behaviour between siblings etc.



*For anyone reading this who isn't familiar with the term, twin studies come from when two identical twins are sometimes adopted by different families and then are compared in adulthood. Since these two people share all their genetics but none/little of their environment (except importantly from the womb!) looking at what is similar and what isn't is a good way of seeing what is (at least partially) inherited and what isn't. By then looking at fraternal twins in the same position (i.e. more genetic difference but still a lot in common especially environmental factors from the womb) and then two random children (i.e. a lot of genetic difference and less in common compared to the other two groups) you can get an idea of the strength of inheritance etc. These studies have been used to great effect in mental illness research, with bipolar for instance the chance of the second child having the illness if the first child has it is about 50% for identical twins, 20ish% for fraternal twins and around 1% for two random people showing the the illness to be strongly inherited (which is unsurprising given it's been observed for over a century to run in families from what I remember).

The important point to take from the bipolar studies is this: There is no absolute genetic determinism going on with bipolar. Even with identical genes one twin can have it and the other not because they were exposed to different environments growing up (though they were exposed to the same environment in the womb). You inherit a tendency and only that, only a small fraction of inherited illnesses are "simple" deterministic diseases like Tay Sachs Disease, where if you have a specific mutation in a specific gene you will develop it and that's that. If one identical twin has Tay Sachs, the other one will too.

For example from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_studies



MZ = identical twins, DZ = fraternal twins, higher = more strongly inherited/shared between twins.

Eurosceptic2008

I suppose one difference is that libertarians tend to believe in the concept of a state under a (limited) govt, whereas anarchists don't.

Brigantes

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I suppose one difference is that libertarians tend to believe in the concept of a state under a (limited) govt, whereas anarchists don't.

That's it exactly.

Anarchists believe that all forms of government are inherently bad.

Libertarians believe that government is a necessary evil but should be severely limited. The original American Constitution shows how Libertarians aimed to impose checks and balances on elected representatives. The BBC News site has a great introduction to the limits on power built into American politics.

Another key difference between Anarchists and Libertarians would be their views on property.

Kama

But we know next to nothing of what that structure is

I've much sympathy with RNL's original complaint; appeals to human nature do tend to be hellah flimsy; using biological evolution as a justification for social forms has a poor track record as alluded to...which isn't an argument against, more of a necessary nuance to bear in mind. Nevertheless, 'nothing' baldly overstates the case. However, I'm fully in agreement that 'what is more relevant [is] what the boundaries of its possibilities are in terms of the forms of human behaviour and human socioeconomic organisation it 'permits'.'

Taking the monogamy-marriage example, the influence between social context and 'nature' can be examined in the social roles governing 'marriages'. I actually think it's a pretty good point of initial comparison; it's one of the most primal form of social relation after mother child (high 'naturalness') typically involves exchange and division of labour, and I'm probably making this particular 'social contract' in the next 6 months haha! It's a social relationship that can be highly equal or unequal, oppressive or liberatory, parasitic or symbiotic, and so on. That and I'm a fan of basic lived metaphors...

Previous to the agricultural revolution (shift from hoe to plow as means of production) we have more mother goddesses (typically a Mother goddess with a replaceable and dying young male consort) while post we have Father gods, often with subordinate female consorts. Coeval with this we have increased male property/economic dominance. Social forms shift from a polyandrous tendency to a more polygynous one. One for the Marxists, cultural superstructure follows material-economic base. There's a African tribe a little like this, where the men dress pretty and have beauty pagaents, and the women run the businesses. 'Human nature' has been trotted out often enough to justify gendered structuration of power, after all, as feminist scholarship will attest; it's generally been a power-play imo. Our understanding of what 'human nature' is or was has tended to shift and reflect the current social practices of the enunciating culture, it seems tenable to presume we are no different.

Now, on 'nature' lines, we can get a fair estimate of the degree of 'natural' predisposition to monogamy from things like testicle size proportional to body weight, but taking the justification of social forms from this 'naturalness', or stating the irrelevance of them, seems equally and oppositely untenable. (I imagine telling my gf I've been spreading my seed abroad due to 'my innate biological urges due to my large (in interspecies terms) testicles, analagous to the nature-justification argument, and it seems as ridiculous as presuming there are no pre-existent and transmitted rules and patterns, social facts for the Durkheimian, and our behaiour is willed and chosen rather than modulated and bounded by accreted social practice.)

My epeenion is that the claim that certain social forms aren't possible due to evo-devo constraints squares oddly with the apparent fact that historically we as a species (and this appears to be our gift and curse) have manged to curcumvent constraints both physical and social, through our social and physical tools. The dice may be loaded, whether towards dominance hierarchies, greed, oppression, being sluts, yet we can and have managed to achieve equalities, selflessness, liberation and fidelity. Or vice versa

The proof of the pudding is...well, the pudding, rather than projections of what is possible with the human ingredients = my 2c.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

The dice may be loaded, whether towards dominance hierarchies, greed, oppression, being sluts, yet we can and have managed to achieve equalities, selflessness, liberation and fidelity. Or vice versa

Well, that's exactly it. The problem with environmental determinists is that they say that the dice are fair, which there is a huge mountain of evidence against. The opposite, that the results are completely fixed has an equally huge mountain of evidence against it. The reality lies between the two extremes, as is so often the case.

Kama

Ah, but without the extremes of disagreement, we'd have the tyranny of mediocre agreement!

and that's against Human Nature!

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Ah, but without the extremes of disagreement, we'd have the tyranny of mediocre agreement!

and that's against Human Nature!

I really wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of evidence showing that to be true tbh. Just look at politics across the world and history.

SkepticOne

I think Kama makes some good points. When we look at cultures around the world and through history we are looking at things that have social structures that have evolved to survive in different environmental conditions. Even if people are basically the same in terms of common human psychology, the way this expresses itself will vary widely. Though I think most people know this already.

It is important, however, not to draw the wrong conclusions from this. It does not mean all social systems are possible or possible without cost.

If we devise a social system that is in conflict with human nature (however we understan it) then there will be a cost. I'm thinking about the great socialist experiments including the Soviet Union and China among others here.

Kama

It is important, however, not to draw the wrong conclusions from this. It does not mean all social systems are possible or possible without cost.

Over and above (unanswerable imo) meandering musings on the true identity of real or reified human nature, this is the core political question for me. Social systems can be viewed as having costs and benefits, which accrue to a greater or lesser extent to different groups within them. I'm assuming politico-economic systems, which effect and reflect distribution of power-resources, are often zero-sum; my power or property excludes that of another.

The key distributional question is who bears the costs, and who gains the benefits, and (regrettably?) this ain't as straight a cost-benefit as one might like. We collectively differ on definition of the benefits, and on relative weighting of the (unagreed) metrics.

If, for a hypothetical, we could trade personal economic liberty for better overall health care outcomes, should we? A 'Leftist' typically will, and will show greater tolerance for, say, Cuban totalitarianism, or cite the increased mortality statistics under liberalized Russia for example, much as a 'Rightist' might show greater tolerance for, decreased political liberty in post-Allende Chile. Costs are always incurred in some form, the Albrightian is usually whether 'we think the price was worth it'. Uncomfortably we drift into the unpleasantly-associated domain of ends-justified utilities.

What outcomes do we favour, what costs are we willing to bear...or cause another to bear, is the determining question. The critical angle approaches this with the imputed costs that we are already bearing or inflicting (a position I share btw), and might view all our enacted social systems as 'experiments', regardless of their ideology.

To attempt to veer back on-topic, (right-anachist) libertarians tend to value individual property ownership far higher than left-anarchists, but I've always vaguely suspected the key differences between them to be more tribal than theoretic, and based more on initial imprints, social associations and dispositions than on any rational weighting and comparison. Though that does kinda demolish my previous argument hehe...

When we look at cultures around the world and through history we are looking at things that have social structures that have evolved to survive in different environmental conditions.

Again, this hits it for me; the adaptive utility of social structures for current environments seems a better approach than making presumptions about whether the 'spook' of human nature allows or disallows any given experiment. Proof of the pudding, again. Our primary mode of evolution for the last while has been socio-cultural more than biological; the 'real' social Darwinism for me is that we have a far greater degree of volition in the selection of what survives, that evolution is no longer quite as blind. My dislike of the 'human nature' argument is its tendency to place limits on this evolution based on past events; I'm reminded of the Fordist quip, predating the self-help industry: 'whether you think you can, or think you can't, you're right!'

Akrasia

Brigantes wrote: »

That's it exactly.

Anarchists believe that all forms of government are inherently bad.

Actually, it's more like, all forms of authority should be challenged, and imposed authority is bad.

This is important because anarchists are just as opposed to bosses as we are to governments, and this is what separates us from libertarians. Libertarians are against governments limiting their personal freedom, but have no issue with capitalist bosses telling their workers when they can and can not take a piss.

Libertarians believe that government is a necessary evil but should be severely limited.

it's necessary to stop the poor from rising up against the rich, and to enforce 'contracts' thereby turning lawyers and the courts into the government rather than the elected officials we now suffer under.

Another key difference between Anarchists and Libertarians would be their views on property.

yep, property is key, people without property will always be dominated by people who control the resources. they can and will be just as tyranical as any government.